http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

PETITIONER:

RAM LAL

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/2000

BENCH:

K.T. Thomas, & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

THOMAS, J.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

Appellant claimed that since the milk he sold was that

of a she-camel he cannot be prosecuted and convicted under

the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,

1954, (for short the Act). The trial court accepted his

claim and acquitted him on the premise that no standard has

been fixed under the Act for such milk. But the High Court,

after holding that camels milk could not be sold for human

consumption, further held that the milk sold was not shown

to be camels milk at all. Nonetheless, learned single

judge of the High Court, on the appeal preferred by the

State, convicted the appellant under Section 16(1) of the

Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

Shri Doongar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant

seemed to be more concerned with that part of the judgment

by which the High Court declared that camels milk cannot be

sold for human consumption. Learned counsel expressed the

apprehension that the above view of the High Court would

affect the people of the State of Rajasthan by and large as

many of them habitually consume camels milk.

Now it is a 22-year old story as the Food Inspector had

purchased milk from the appellant on 9.10.1978. He took

sample therewith on the spot. One part of the sample was

sent to the Public Analyst for examination. The report of

the Public Analyst showed that the sample was examined and

found to contain 25% of added water and that the milk fat

was 4.1% and the milk solid non-fat was 6.74%. After the

prosecution evidence was completed in the trial court

appellant offered himself to be examined as a witness. In

his evidence he did not dispute the fact that Food Inspector

purchased milk from him nor the stand of the Food Inspector

that sampling was done in his presence. However, appellant

took the stand that it was milk of camel which was edible

and that he did not add water to it. His defence was that

no standard was fixed for camels milk and hence he is not

liable to be convicted on the strength of the report of the

Public Analyst.

It is an unnecessary exercise to discuss whether the

milk sold by the appellant was camels milk or any other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

class of milk. In this case the prosecution did not suggest

what class of milk had been sold to the Food Inspector.

Hence we have to proceed on the assumption that the milk

sold by the appellant was camels milk. Appellant opted to

give defence evidence on the impression that the charge

which he was called upon to face was that he sold milk which

was not usable for human consumption.

Part III of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules

(for short the Rules) contains Definitions and Standards@@

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

of Quality of various articles of food. Rule 5 which falls@@

JJ

within the said Part says that the standards of quality of

various articles of food specified in Appendix B to these

Rules are as defined in that appendix. Milk is defined in

Item A.11.01.01 of Appendix B as the normal mammary

secretion derived from complete milking of healthy milch

animal without either addition thereto or extraction

therefrom. But it shall be free from colostrum. The above

definition does not differentiate between milk of different

animals. Hence it is clear that camels milk also would

fall within the amplitude of the said definition. The

question whether the camel milk can be consumed by human

beings as a food article need not vex us much, for, the Food

Inspector in this case took the sample on the assumption

that it was a food article. If it was not a food article

the Food Inspector had no power to take sample therefrom.

Section 10 of the Act confers power on the Food Inspector to

take sample of any article of food. Food is defined in

Section 2(v) as any article used as food or drink for human

consumption, other than drugs and water and includes .

(As the items included thereby are not very relevant for the

purpose of this case the remaining part of the definition is

omitted). We may observe that an article which is food does

not lose its character as food by the fact that it was also

used or sold for other purposes.

After observing that camels milk could not have been

sold for human consumption learned single judge of the High

Court proceeded to consider the evidence in the case to

ascertain whether the sample was really that of camels

milk. The evidence tendered by the accused to the effect

that the milk sold by him was camels milk was simply

sidelined by the learned single judge, but he did not reach

any specific finding as to what class of milk had been sold

to the Food Inspector. In our view, there is no room for

dissenting from the defence version that it was camels milk

that was sold to the Food Inspector. We would therefore

proceed on that premise.

In Encyclopaedia Americana (volume 5, page 263) it is

mentioned that the milk of camel is nutritious. In the

World Book Encyclopedia it is said that millions of people

who live in Africa and Asia depend on camels to supply most

of their needs For people who live deep in the deserts,

camels are almost the only source of transportation, food,

clothing, and shelter They drink camels milk and also

make cheese from it. The milk is so rich and thick that it

forms hard lumps in tea or coffee.

In the book authored by Mr. G.S.Rathore, Former

Director Animal Husbandary Department, Government of

Rajasthan, which was published by Indian Council of

Agricultural Research (ICAR is its acronym) under the title

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

Camels and their Management the following passage appears

in Chapter 17:

Composition of Milk Milk does not occupy the same

position in commerce as that of cows and baffaloes chiefly

because of its limited availability. Besides, camels are

not bred and reared as mulch animals. However, camels milk

is sold in some parts of the world and forms an important

article of food for camel-rearers. She-camels are generally

milked twice a day. They yield 2.5 to 5 kg a day, and some

15 kg a day. The location yield is reported to vary from

1300 to 3600 kg, depending on the extent of feeding and

care. But a low yield is the rule.

Like the milk from other milch animals, she- camels

milk is likely to vary in its gross composition with breed,

individual animals, plan of nutrition, season and

atmospheric temperature, age, stage of lactation, and the

analytical techniques used. Most camel- rearers find the

milk of camel sharp and saline in taste and hard to curdle

or to prepare ghee from it by the usual methods. Much of

the she-camels milk is consumed as liquid milk though some

of it is used in preparing delicacies.

The study made with camels milk by various countries

reveals that it contains fatty acid and the total protein is

of the same order as in cows milk. In the same publication

it is mentioned that Russian workers have made extensive

studies on the vitamin contents of camels milk.

A French Scientific Organisation called CIRAD has been

specialising in agricultural research for the tropics and@@

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

subtropics of the world. Recently the said organisation

came out with a paper which is available in internet

(Website:

http://www.cirad.fr/publications/ouvrages/608/opening.html).

The following passage in it under the caption The camels

milk commodity systems, how to lay a bet on modernity, and

traditional techniques, can profitably be used for our

purpose.

Some countries have already taken up the challenge of

giving camels full productive animal status, an important

factor in animal production economics. In most cases, the

move was initiated by farsighted individuals who were ahead

of their time and deserve recognition. The dairies set up

here and there are an excellent, albeit isolated example,

and the Laitiere de Mauuritanie is a case in point. The

private initiatives launched by farmers to sell milk in

production zones or urban consumption areas is another

striding example of the economic dynamism of these

operations who have far too often been overlooked. This is

currently the case in many animal production zones such as

southern Morocco, more historically in Somalia, and on the

ranches of northern areas where camels have been introduced

alongside bovines and zebus, to quote just a few examples.

In other areas, the move reflected a strong political

commitment on the part of those in charge of the

agricultural economy and their operational structures. This

was the case in central Asia, where the camels milk

commodity channels have entirely fulfilled the role assigned

to them: feeding specific target populations in certain

cities(for dietetic or therapeutic dietetic or therapeutic

diets in hospitals), but also healthy populations for whom

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

camels milk products have a high symbolic value rather than

being seen as mere foods. This is still the case in Africa,

particularly Mauritania, where the authorities appreciate

the manifold and productive role the species can play in

providing milk to urban areas.

Even if the people outside camel raring regions did not

think of using milk of that mammal for human consumption,

that is no reason to derecognise the practice of the people

in those regions consuming milk of camel in the same manner

as other classes of edible milk are consumed by people

elsewhere.

For all the above reasons we are unable to agree with

the finding of the High Court that camel milk is not fit for

human consumption. We do recognise the fact that in some

States in India, particularly in Rajasthan, camel milk is

extensively used as edible article.

True, no standard has been specifically fixed for

camels milk in the Rules. However, different standards

have been fixed for different classes and designations of

milk. In the table provided below the Rules, under Item

A.11.01.11 of Appendix-B, only three classes of milk are

mentioned i.e. buffalo milk, cow milk and goat or sheep

milk. But clause (i) of the Note added to the table states

thus:

When milk is offered for sale without any distinction

of class, the standards prescribed for buffalo milk shall

apply.

For buffalo milk different standards are fixed as for

different States. For the State of Rajasthan the minimum

milk fat fixed for buffalo milk is 5% and the

milk-solids-non-fat should be 9%. In the present case the

Public Analyst found (as pointed out earlier) that the

sample of milk contains only 4.1% of milk fat and 6.74% of

milk-solids-non-fat. In spite of the Note added to the

table provided under the aforesaid items we have difficulty

to treat the two constituents of camels milk on a par with

buffalo milk for more than one reason. In the Encyclopedia

Americana (International Edn.) a table is given for Average

Composition of milk from different mammals. For buffalo

milk the fat percentage is 7.73, and non-solids-fat

percentage is 9.93 whereas for camel milk the average

percentage of fat is 4.15 and solids-non-fat is only 8.

Even in the publication made by the ICAR composition of

camels milk is shown as fat 7.8 per cent and solids-non-fat

9.59 per cent.

If the above is the study report of even the ICAR it is

for the prosecution to show how the minimum requirements

fixed for buffalo milk would become scientifically relevant

as for the camels milk. This is an area where the

attention of the Central Government must be focussed for

considering whether there should be re-fixation of the

components as for the standard in respect of camels milk.

Be that as it may, the offence committed by the

appellant is not merely that he sold sub-standard camels

milk but he sold the milk by adding water thereto. Rule 44

of the Rules prohibits the sale of milk which contains any

added water. The Public Analyst who tested the sample in

the laboratory has reported that it contained 25% of added

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

water. Hence the offence to be found against appellant is

Section 16(1)(a)(I) of the Act.

We, therefore, uphold the conviction of the appellant

though for different reasons which we have adverted to

above. Now we have to decide the question of sentence.

A plea was made before us to reduce the sentence to the

minimum permitted under the first proviso to Section 16(1)

of the Act. It is not disputed that if there are adequate

and special reasons the sentence could be brought down to

imprisonment for a term of 3 months and a fine of Rs.500/-,

as this case falls within the ambit of clause (i) of the

Proviso to Section 16(1).

Appellant was only 19 years old when he sold the milk to

the Food Inspector. We have no doubt that it can be

regarded as a special reason. Yet another reason is that

appellant was put to notice by the prosecution in the High

Court that the offence committed was that he sold an article

which was not edible. We also take into account the fact

that the appellant was not given any opportunity to say

anything regarding the sentence. Of course, there was no

need for the trial court to do so since appellant was

acquitted by that court. But when the High Court had chosen

to reverse the acquittal and convicted him he should have

been heard on the sentence. Now it is too late in the day

for us to send the case back to the High Court for that

purpose alone. Any further delay in disposing of this

matter would cause irreparable damage to him.

For all the above reasons we reduce the sentence to

imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs.500/-, default in

payment of which the appellant will undergo imprisonment for

a further period of 15 days.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.